|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 05 2016 22:24 Probe1 wrote:
It's funny how Trump is more popular on the internet with people who aren't Americans than he is here.
Team chaos
Being an active Internet citizen is probably the primary mechanism by which people not in the US are convinced to support Trump.
|
On November 05 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 20:05 LegalLord wrote:Previously, the topic of "which five foreign agencies allegedly hacked into Hillary's server" came up. I found this article just now. Hillary Clinton's private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators.
The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has found evidence of attempted intrusions into Clinton's server in 2013 and 2014, according to a letter Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent Monday to a Florida-based security firm tasked with protecting the hardware.
The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton's sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says.
The Associated Press first reported the news.
The attempted security breaches and apparent gaps in protection raise further questions about the level of security Clinton used to prevent malicious intrusions from breaching her network. The FBI is currently probing whether her rare email arrangement at State — exclusively using her own personal server rather than a State.gov account — ever put national security at risk. The State Department has now classified more than 400 Clinton emails that were stored on that hardware, though Clinton's team notes they were not marked classified at the time.
The last batch of Clinton's emails released by the State Department under a court order in a Freedom of Information Act suit showed that Clinton received at least five emails from hackers linked to Russia. If Clinton opened attachments in the emails, her account and server could have been vulnerable to hacking, although it is unclear if she did so.
SourceLooks like America was betrayed by its so-called allies in SK/Germany, who had the gall to try to hack into her private email server. How dare they! And how dare Trump ask Russia for those files instead of our esteemed allies? More seriously, the previous argument of "if anything, Hillary's server kept those emails safe from the otherwise-hacked State Dept" isn't really doing well. Looks more likely that the State Dept is bad at cybersecurity and so is Hillary. Actually, it's doing just as well as before, considering there is still no evidence that her account and server were breached. It's possible they were and it's possible they weren't, while we know for a fact that the unclassified system of the State Dept was hacked. In other news, here's an interesting piece by Kurt Eichenwald on Russian efforts to influence the US election: click here (he relies a lot on anonymous source from Western intelligence services, so some of it does have to be taken with a grain of salt).
Fair enough, it still fits into the "really fucking stupid and unlikely" pile rather than the "conclusively proven to be idiotic" one.
In other news, the guy who thought a Twitter post was indicative of a Putin-Trump conspiracy found some other unreliable pseudo-investigation to pursue.
|
On November 05 2016 22:24 Probe1 wrote:
It's funny how Trump is more popular on the internet with people who aren't Americans than he is here.
Team chaos
Dunno man to me it seems like most Trump supporters in this thread are American. Yes, you have 3 or 4 regular posters who support Trump and aren't American but that's it, the rest of foreigners here don't support him.
If you mean internet in general then I think you're also wrong because Russia is like the only "relevant" country where Trump has more support than Clinton.
|
On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards.
Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration.
If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face.
|
On November 05 2016 22:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards. Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration. If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face.
No, that would demonstrate that the Obama administration was insufficiently left-wing.
The answer to "our current velocity takes us off a cliff" is not "accelerate in the direction of the cliff".
|
Main headline on HuffPo right now is "White Guys run Amok"
They are literally blaming the FBI for reopening the investigation on the FBI being too white and too male.
Seriously HuffPo you don't know what the FBI has found so thats a ridiculous statement to make.
Many of these left wing news sites are indistinguishable from the onion at this stage.
|
On November 05 2016 22:50 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 22:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards. Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration. If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face. No, that would demonstrate that the Obama administration was insufficiently left-wing. The answer to "our current velocity takes us off a cliff" is not "accelerate in the direction of the cliff".
Well Hillary wants to continue the status quo of Obama, under who income inequality still rose.
His argument should have been income inequality will still rise under Clinton but maybe not by as much under Trump.
By his standards we are "going backwards" with the current status quo.
|
On November 05 2016 22:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 19:37 NukeD wrote:On November 05 2016 18:55 ragz_gt wrote:On November 05 2016 18:49 Nebuchad wrote:On November 05 2016 18:45 Tachion wrote:On November 05 2016 16:24 NukeD wrote:On November 05 2016 15:39 Blisse wrote:
So... Anti-establishment. Because people like you think there's something wrong with society and the elites and Hillary is the pinnacle of elites keeping themselves in power while pandering to the commoners. All of that would make sense if like, you thought the world is broken and and you think Hillary doesn't do good things because she wants to do good but as an act to pretend to be good so the common folk will vote for her. I mean my favourite author GRRM says he wouldn't vote Trump, so I think my opinion is validated as well. Yeah we do. Actually only 1 thing. The fact (?) that 1% holds 90% of wealth. If that was a bit more fair distribution, I would be pro establishment. EDIT: From the Zizek video; he nailed exactly why I want Trump to win and why I am prepared to look past his flaws. Plenty of dems feel the same way, I mean that was a gigantic part of bernies appeal, being anti-establishment. Unfortunately, many Bernie supporters don't value this above Trump's many other faults and policies. Bernie felt like a uniter, and trump a divider. Some of us are also able to see how incredibly obvious it is that Trump won't do anything to help with this specific situation... This... like really? Are people really counting on a guy who literally spent a life exploiting economical inequality to do anything different? I guess he could be so bad that he would single-handedly change the course of public momentum.... so there is that. As Zizek said, it doesnt matter what Trump does as president, him getting elected is a big slap to the current political process and the "establishment" will be forced to rethink their position and policies. Yes, just damage the lives of countless citizens so you can have a "political shake-up". Never mind the incredible harm he would do to our economy, foreign policy, and social equality. Totally worth it just to give a big middle finger to The Man. Not to mention that your entire belief rests on the gloriously ignorant belief that Trump will actually change anything and isn't the very embodiment of sleazy corruption himself.
Glorious ignorant belief? Why so agressive? Im sorry i dont support Hillary, im also sorry that you think less of me because of that. Ive said a lot of times here that both candidates are horse**** candidates but you just assume I think hes the best thing that ever happened and attack me because of that.
You also speak like its a fact he would cause "incredible harm to your economy, social equallity and foreign policy", and obviously you undermine people who in your opinion fail to have the same smart/rational/logic/unmistakable tought process that made you reach your conclusions. Mind if i called those conclusions ignorant, like you did for mine? Well sorry once again, if you speak in absolutes to me like you do, I will share your opinion of me on your mental process.
Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho.
|
On November 05 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 22:50 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards. Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration. If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face. No, that would demonstrate that the Obama administration was insufficiently left-wing. The answer to "our current velocity takes us off a cliff" is not "accelerate in the direction of the cliff". Well Hillary wants to continue the status quo of Obama, under who income inequality still rose. His argument should have been income inequality will still rise under Clinton but maybe not by as much under Trump. By his standards we are "going backwards" with the current status quo.
Assuming that your claim about the Obama administration is true, which I don't have any information on to hand, that might be an error made in his argument for Clinton over Trump - but it's not an error which affects the fundamental point, that being that income inequality is (likely to be) worse under Trump than it would be under Clinton.
If you're going to try to dispute this argument for Clinton over Trump, then you will need to engage with that fundamental point rather than things which don't affect it.
On November 05 2016 22:57 NukeD wrote:
...
Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho.
Which conclusion? I do not see how the thoroughly dubious effect on the political establishment which electing Trump might have is worth the direct damage which a Trump administration would be very likely to inflict on the United States and potentially the rest of the world
|
On November 05 2016 22:59 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 22:50 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards. Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration. If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face. No, that would demonstrate that the Obama administration was insufficiently left-wing. The answer to "our current velocity takes us off a cliff" is not "accelerate in the direction of the cliff". Well Hillary wants to continue the status quo of Obama, under who income inequality still rose. His argument should have been income inequality will still rise under Clinton but maybe not by as much under Trump. By his standards we are "going backwards" with the current status quo. Assuming that your claim about the Obama administration is true, which I don't have any information on to hand, that might be an error made in his argument for Clinton over Trump - but it's not an error which affects the fundamental point, that being that income inequality is (likely to be) worse under Trump than it would be under Clinton. If you're going to try to dispute this argument for Clinton over Trump, then you will need to engage with that fundamental point rather than things which don't affect it.
I can respect that point of view and i do. Its a valid argument.
|
On November 05 2016 22:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2016 20:05 LegalLord wrote:Previously, the topic of "which five foreign agencies allegedly hacked into Hillary's server" came up. I found this article just now. Hillary Clinton's private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators.
The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has found evidence of attempted intrusions into Clinton's server in 2013 and 2014, according to a letter Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent Monday to a Florida-based security firm tasked with protecting the hardware.
The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton's sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says.
The Associated Press first reported the news.
The attempted security breaches and apparent gaps in protection raise further questions about the level of security Clinton used to prevent malicious intrusions from breaching her network. The FBI is currently probing whether her rare email arrangement at State — exclusively using her own personal server rather than a State.gov account — ever put national security at risk. The State Department has now classified more than 400 Clinton emails that were stored on that hardware, though Clinton's team notes they were not marked classified at the time.
The last batch of Clinton's emails released by the State Department under a court order in a Freedom of Information Act suit showed that Clinton received at least five emails from hackers linked to Russia. If Clinton opened attachments in the emails, her account and server could have been vulnerable to hacking, although it is unclear if she did so.
SourceLooks like America was betrayed by its so-called allies in SK/Germany, who had the gall to try to hack into her private email server. How dare they! And how dare Trump ask Russia for those files instead of our esteemed allies? More seriously, the previous argument of "if anything, Hillary's server kept those emails safe from the otherwise-hacked State Dept" isn't really doing well. Looks more likely that the State Dept is bad at cybersecurity and so is Hillary. Actually, it's doing just as well as before, considering there is still no evidence that her account and server were breached. It's possible they were and it's possible they weren't, while we know for a fact that the unclassified system of the State Dept was hacked. In other news, here's an interesting piece by Kurt Eichenwald on Russian efforts to influence the US election: click here (he relies a lot on anonymous source from Western intelligence services, so some of it does have to be taken with a grain of salt). Fair enough, it still fits into the "really fucking stupid and unlikely" pile rather than the "conclusively proven to be idiotic" one. In other news, the guy who thought a Twitter post was indicative of a Putin-Trump conspiracy found some other unreliable pseudo-investigation to pursue.
I feel like "awards-winning journalist" is a more accurate description of "the guy". And how is it a pseudo-investigation?
|
On November 05 2016 22:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2016 20:05 LegalLord wrote:Previously, the topic of "which five foreign agencies allegedly hacked into Hillary's server" came up. I found this article just now. Hillary Clinton's private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators.
The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has found evidence of attempted intrusions into Clinton's server in 2013 and 2014, according to a letter Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent Monday to a Florida-based security firm tasked with protecting the hardware.
The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton's sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says.
The Associated Press first reported the news.
The attempted security breaches and apparent gaps in protection raise further questions about the level of security Clinton used to prevent malicious intrusions from breaching her network. The FBI is currently probing whether her rare email arrangement at State — exclusively using her own personal server rather than a State.gov account — ever put national security at risk. The State Department has now classified more than 400 Clinton emails that were stored on that hardware, though Clinton's team notes they were not marked classified at the time.
The last batch of Clinton's emails released by the State Department under a court order in a Freedom of Information Act suit showed that Clinton received at least five emails from hackers linked to Russia. If Clinton opened attachments in the emails, her account and server could have been vulnerable to hacking, although it is unclear if she did so.
SourceLooks like America was betrayed by its so-called allies in SK/Germany, who had the gall to try to hack into her private email server. How dare they! And how dare Trump ask Russia for those files instead of our esteemed allies? More seriously, the previous argument of "if anything, Hillary's server kept those emails safe from the otherwise-hacked State Dept" isn't really doing well. Looks more likely that the State Dept is bad at cybersecurity and so is Hillary. Actually, it's doing just as well as before, considering there is still no evidence that her account and server were breached. It's possible they were and it's possible they weren't, while we know for a fact that the unclassified system of the State Dept was hacked. In other news, here's an interesting piece by Kurt Eichenwald on Russian efforts to influence the US election: click here (he relies a lot on anonymous source from Western intelligence services, so some of it does have to be taken with a grain of salt). Fair enough, it still fits into the "really fucking stupid and unlikely" pile rather than the "conclusively proven to be idiotic" one. In other news, the guy who thought a Twitter post was indicative of a Putin-Trump conspiracy found some other unreliable pseudo-investigation to pursue.
I still find it astonishing that people think reading the wikileaks website instead of just following their twitter account to find out when they post new information means that RT is somehow in cahoots with wikileaks.
|
On November 05 2016 22:59 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 22:50 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards. Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration. If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face. No, that would demonstrate that the Obama administration was insufficiently left-wing. The answer to "our current velocity takes us off a cliff" is not "accelerate in the direction of the cliff". Well Hillary wants to continue the status quo of Obama, under who income inequality still rose. His argument should have been income inequality will still rise under Clinton but maybe not by as much under Trump. By his standards we are "going backwards" with the current status quo. Assuming that your claim about the Obama administration is true, which I don't have any information on to hand, that might be an error made in his argument for Clinton over Trump - but it's not an error which affects the fundamental point, that being that income inequality is (likely to be) worse under Trump than it would be under Clinton. If you're going to try to dispute this argument for Clinton over Trump, then you will need to engage with that fundamental point rather than things which don't affect it. Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 22:57 NukeD wrote:
...
Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho. Which conclusion? I do not see how the thoroughly dubious effect on the political establishment which electing Trump might have is worth the direct damage which a Trump administration would be very likely to inflict on the United States and potentially the rest of the world
Clinton's plan is to encourage companies to invest abroad, perhaps make more fortune and tax those companies and hopefully the taxes can trickle down to your average Americans.
But Americans will be losing jobs to foreign competition.
Trump seek to encourage companies to invest domestically but to make up for the foreign loss of profit by those companies, he wants to decrease taxes for the companies.
But in this case, companies would create jobs domestically.
|
It takes a special kind of man to watch this video:
and say this:
"He was talking to the protester, screaming at him, really screaming at him. By the way, if I spoke the way Obama spoke to that protester, they would say, 'He became unhinged!' ... And he spent so much time screaming at this protester and frankly, it was a disgrace.
Trump lies in a demonstrably false reality. At least I haven't seen Clinton accused of doing that.
On November 05 2016 23:59 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 22:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 22:50 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards. Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration. If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face. No, that would demonstrate that the Obama administration was insufficiently left-wing. The answer to "our current velocity takes us off a cliff" is not "accelerate in the direction of the cliff". Well Hillary wants to continue the status quo of Obama, under who income inequality still rose. His argument should have been income inequality will still rise under Clinton but maybe not by as much under Trump. By his standards we are "going backwards" with the current status quo. Assuming that your claim about the Obama administration is true, which I don't have any information on to hand, that might be an error made in his argument for Clinton over Trump - but it's not an error which affects the fundamental point, that being that income inequality is (likely to be) worse under Trump than it would be under Clinton. If you're going to try to dispute this argument for Clinton over Trump, then you will need to engage with that fundamental point rather than things which don't affect it. On November 05 2016 22:57 NukeD wrote:
...
Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho. Which conclusion? I do not see how the thoroughly dubious effect on the political establishment which electing Trump might have is worth the direct damage which a Trump administration would be very likely to inflict on the United States and potentially the rest of the world Clinton's plan is to encourage companies to invest abroad, perhaps make more fortune and tax those companies and hopefully the taxes can trickle down to your average Americans. But Americans will be losing jobs to foreign competition. Trump seek to encourage companies to invest domestically but to make up for the foreign loss of profit by those companies, he wants to decrease taxes for the companies. But in this case, companies would create jobs domestically.
I think you misspelt "Trump seeks to start an international trade war that will devastate U.S. jobs domestically."
|
On November 05 2016 22:44 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 22:24 Probe1 wrote:
It's funny how Trump is more popular on the internet with people who aren't Americans than he is here.
Team chaos Dunno man to me it seems like most Trump supporters in this thread are American. Yes, you have 3 or 4 regular posters who support Trump and aren't American but that's it, the rest of foreigners here don't support him. If you mean internet in general then I think you're also wrong because Russia is like the only "relevant" country where Trump has more support than Clinton.
Oh I can't speak for an entire country. Just the active posters across the internet who are not American tend to support Trump in the same way posters who were not British supported Brexit.
Stateside the kinds of pro-Trump arguments have vanished. His campaign, and supporters, are entirely betting on being anti-Clinton rather than try to convince anyone Trump has any kind of policy or yet to be disclosed ability to lead.
|
The big lie is a tool of propaganda. Constantly asserting an alternate reality that isn't backed up by real life events allows the propagandist to escape any criticism. They can never fail, only be cheated of victory by their opponents through corruption. Their rhetoric isn't caustic, their words are being distorted. They are never losing, never behind, always the underdog and nothing they say should be taken at face value.
Some of the worst leaders in the world have employed the tactics Trump is using against the "establishment". It is effective, but also prevents anyone from holding him accountable for any of his actions.
|
On November 06 2016 00:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:It takes a special kind of man to watch this video:
and say this: Show nested quote +"He was talking to the protester, screaming at him, really screaming at him. By the way, if I spoke the way Obama spoke to that protester, they would say, 'He became unhinged!' ... And he spent so much time screaming at this protester and frankly, it was a disgrace. Trump lies in a demonstrably false reality. At least I haven't seen Clinton accused of doing that. Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 23:59 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 05 2016 22:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 22:50 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards. Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration. If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face. No, that would demonstrate that the Obama administration was insufficiently left-wing. The answer to "our current velocity takes us off a cliff" is not "accelerate in the direction of the cliff". Well Hillary wants to continue the status quo of Obama, under who income inequality still rose. His argument should have been income inequality will still rise under Clinton but maybe not by as much under Trump. By his standards we are "going backwards" with the current status quo. Assuming that your claim about the Obama administration is true, which I don't have any information on to hand, that might be an error made in his argument for Clinton over Trump - but it's not an error which affects the fundamental point, that being that income inequality is (likely to be) worse under Trump than it would be under Clinton. If you're going to try to dispute this argument for Clinton over Trump, then you will need to engage with that fundamental point rather than things which don't affect it. On November 05 2016 22:57 NukeD wrote:
...
Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho. Which conclusion? I do not see how the thoroughly dubious effect on the political establishment which electing Trump might have is worth the direct damage which a Trump administration would be very likely to inflict on the United States and potentially the rest of the world Clinton's plan is to encourage companies to invest abroad, perhaps make more fortune and tax those companies and hopefully the taxes can trickle down to your average Americans. But Americans will be losing jobs to foreign competition. Trump seek to encourage companies to invest domestically but to make up for the foreign loss of profit by those companies, he wants to decrease taxes for the companies. But in this case, companies would create jobs domestically. I think you misspelt "Trump seeks to start an international trade war that will devastate U.S. jobs domestically."
No, Trump seeks to get better deals for Americans on the international stage.
Because let's face it, Hillary Clinton is "status quo" from Obama. And since Obama have been in office, U.S. debt have only been increasing, not decreasing.
So if things are to remain "status quo", that's not something to be proud of.
|
On November 06 2016 00:09 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 00:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:It takes a special kind of man to watch this video:
and say this: "He was talking to the protester, screaming at him, really screaming at him. By the way, if I spoke the way Obama spoke to that protester, they would say, 'He became unhinged!' ... And he spent so much time screaming at this protester and frankly, it was a disgrace. Trump lies in a demonstrably false reality. At least I haven't seen Clinton accused of doing that. On November 05 2016 23:59 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 05 2016 22:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 22:50 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards. Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration. If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face. No, that would demonstrate that the Obama administration was insufficiently left-wing. The answer to "our current velocity takes us off a cliff" is not "accelerate in the direction of the cliff". Well Hillary wants to continue the status quo of Obama, under who income inequality still rose. His argument should have been income inequality will still rise under Clinton but maybe not by as much under Trump. By his standards we are "going backwards" with the current status quo. Assuming that your claim about the Obama administration is true, which I don't have any information on to hand, that might be an error made in his argument for Clinton over Trump - but it's not an error which affects the fundamental point, that being that income inequality is (likely to be) worse under Trump than it would be under Clinton. If you're going to try to dispute this argument for Clinton over Trump, then you will need to engage with that fundamental point rather than things which don't affect it. On November 05 2016 22:57 NukeD wrote:
...
Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho. Which conclusion? I do not see how the thoroughly dubious effect on the political establishment which electing Trump might have is worth the direct damage which a Trump administration would be very likely to inflict on the United States and potentially the rest of the world Clinton's plan is to encourage companies to invest abroad, perhaps make more fortune and tax those companies and hopefully the taxes can trickle down to your average Americans. But Americans will be losing jobs to foreign competition. Trump seek to encourage companies to invest domestically but to make up for the foreign loss of profit by those companies, he wants to decrease taxes for the companies. But in this case, companies would create jobs domestically. I think you misspelt "Trump seeks to start an international trade war that will devastate U.S. jobs domestically." No, Trump seeks to get better deals for Americans on the international stage. Because let's face it, Hillary Clinton is "status quo" from Obama. And since Obama have been in office, U.S. debt have only been increasing, not decreasing. So if things are to remain "status quo", that's not something to be proud of.
And he will fail. The nations he will be dealing with have their own experts in trade and he won't be able to simply bully them over. "Business experience" does not apply to international trade. Sovereign nations are not buisness, they can't declare bankruptcy and force their debt to be forgiven. Trump lacks this basic understanding, since he believes the nation can default on its debt and that it won't destroy the economy doing so.
|
On November 06 2016 00:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 00:09 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 06 2016 00:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:It takes a special kind of man to watch this video:
and say this: "He was talking to the protester, screaming at him, really screaming at him. By the way, if I spoke the way Obama spoke to that protester, they would say, 'He became unhinged!' ... And he spent so much time screaming at this protester and frankly, it was a disgrace. Trump lies in a demonstrably false reality. At least I haven't seen Clinton accused of doing that. On November 05 2016 23:59 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 05 2016 22:59 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 22:50 Aquanim wrote:On November 05 2016 22:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 21:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Income inequality, if we paint a really broad picture, happens when the right wing of a country goes unchecked for too long. You're advocating vote for an even more right wing candidate.
Clinton is not a solution, but Clinton creates a climate where we can still fight for a solution, cause her trend will be status quo, not going backwards. Please post data/links showing that income inequality has diminished under the Obama administration. If you can't find anything and the status quo is increasing income inequality then your argument really just falls flat on it's face. No, that would demonstrate that the Obama administration was insufficiently left-wing. The answer to "our current velocity takes us off a cliff" is not "accelerate in the direction of the cliff". Well Hillary wants to continue the status quo of Obama, under who income inequality still rose. His argument should have been income inequality will still rise under Clinton but maybe not by as much under Trump. By his standards we are "going backwards" with the current status quo. Assuming that your claim about the Obama administration is true, which I don't have any information on to hand, that might be an error made in his argument for Clinton over Trump - but it's not an error which affects the fundamental point, that being that income inequality is (likely to be) worse under Trump than it would be under Clinton. If you're going to try to dispute this argument for Clinton over Trump, then you will need to engage with that fundamental point rather than things which don't affect it. On November 05 2016 22:57 NukeD wrote:
...
Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho. Which conclusion? I do not see how the thoroughly dubious effect on the political establishment which electing Trump might have is worth the direct damage which a Trump administration would be very likely to inflict on the United States and potentially the rest of the world Clinton's plan is to encourage companies to invest abroad, perhaps make more fortune and tax those companies and hopefully the taxes can trickle down to your average Americans. But Americans will be losing jobs to foreign competition. Trump seek to encourage companies to invest domestically but to make up for the foreign loss of profit by those companies, he wants to decrease taxes for the companies. But in this case, companies would create jobs domestically. I think you misspelt "Trump seeks to start an international trade war that will devastate U.S. jobs domestically." No, Trump seeks to get better deals for Americans on the international stage. Because let's face it, Hillary Clinton is "status quo" from Obama. And since Obama have been in office, U.S. debt have only been increasing, not decreasing. So if things are to remain "status quo", that's not something to be proud of. And he will fail. The nations he will be dealing with have their own experts in trade and he won't be able to simply bully them over. "Business experience" does not apply to international trade. Sovereign nations are not buisness, they can't declare bankruptcy and force their debt to be forgiven. Trump lacks this basic understanding, since he believes the nation can default on its debt and that it won't destroy the economy doing so.
It depends on his negotiation tactics.
Just like how China does things, they utilize EVERY SINGLE advantage they have and poorer nations kind of have to abide by Chinese standard.
American companies are still the best in the world and so is American military, which puts us in a better position than China.
So if you think that he'll fail, you are really looking out for Americans and that's sad.
|
RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews.
he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
